5 ms·

I'm not so sure dismissing this as "childish drama" is smart. Sure, it's technically possible, but technical possibility does not mean it should be used, especi

I'm not so sure dismissing this as "childish drama" is smart. Sure, it's technically possible, but technical possibility does not mean it should be used, especially in this sort of way. I don't think it's a bad idea to disassociate yourself from a company who's behaving in a way you don't want to condone.

nurettin 10y ago
It may not be smart, but it definitely is not stupid as you might have insinuated. Individuals deciding to exit because they disagree with company policy (editing content and apologizing) is one thing, forcing others, who don't care about stupid internet drama and conspiracy theories, to do the same is entirely something else. (that something else is borderline despotic)
- problems 10y ago
  Again "stupid internet drama and conspiracy theories" this is not. An admin abused their power. It's ripe for abuse and they've proven they're willing to abuse it and not mature enough to treat that power respectfully. I have a hard time respecting a company with someone like that as CEO. No conspiracy, no politics, just what happened.
  - nurettin 10y ago
    Willing to abuse it - that is conspiracy -. How do you know that something done once will repeat? Will google restart google buzz because they did it once? Will everyone jump ship to RoR because they did it before? I am doing everything I can not to create strawmen believe me, but your explanation simply does not cut it.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Because the power is there and it's tempting to use. Restarting Buzz may not have economic sense for Google, but abusing admin-edit powers has obvious value for the abusers and may be hard to catch if the abuser is not an idiot. "Opportunity makes a thief", and all.
      - oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
        But, realistically, the power is there on any site featuring user contributions - Hacker News, Twitter, Slashdot, etc. etc. Humans are fallible; given infinite time, the same thing will happen on those sites too, and probably worse. If you push someone hard enough (I don't know the full story, but I believe the CEO was provoked) they will lash out and do something stupid unless they are incredibly serene or lack any emotion. If that possibility is too much of a concern, maybe we need to come up with an alternative - like some kind of decentralised, mass-distributed reddit-like. Actually, wasn't that usenet? Is it too late to get that back?
        Buge 10y ago
        When people get "pushed hard enough" the usual thing is deleting comments and banning users. That's a known and accepted moderation power. Sure it's abused sometimes, but at least it's not lying and wrongly attributing negative comments to people. Invisibly editing comments is a very unexpected route to take. I doubt you could push most CEOs to that. They would just delete the comment.
        stcredzero 10y ago
        That's a known and accepted moderation power. Sure it's abused sometimes... That you'd say this is an indication of how far the culture online has fallen. What's now taken as an accepted use of moderation power was once considered abusive.
        sqeaky 10y ago
        These other sites have demonstrated trustworthiness, as has Reddit up until this. We all know that site operators can change things, but some of them have enough integrity to be trusted not to.
      - eridius 10y ago
        The power has always been there. The fact that it's taken until now for the CEO to use it suggests that it's not actually ripe for abuse. And the fact that the CEO immediately reverted it, apologized, and is watching the community blow up, serves as even further motivation for not abusing this power again.
  - shadowmint 10y ago
    Then leave. Don't use the site. How is this a big deal? If you're not comfortable with a platform then by every means, don't use it. ...but why does what you think mean that everyone should be affected?
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Because then people don't get to be righteous.
      - threeseed 10y ago
        That's the best thing about righteous people. The ease with which they want to control and dictate the opinions and behaviours of other people.
    - xg15 10y ago
      Network effect. If only few people leave, each of them has to face a penalty for leaving (in this case not being able to participate in one of Go's main discussion hubs). If the whole community decides to leave (or rather move), there is no such penalty.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        This would be selfish, coercive and has 0 chance of working in the real world: I guarantee you there will be /r/golang2 or /r/gogophers within minutes of the the original subreddit being closed. As mentioned by someone else in the thread: the subreddit was in existence before being taken over by the golang team, it was fine before them, it will be fine after them if they choose to leave.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      Because the long term damage could be larger than the short term costs. I do not know if that is the case, that is up to the mods of /r/golang.
  - blitzd 10y ago
    I would argue that a moderator shutting down a community of 25,000 individuals because of their own personal opinions is just as much if not the greater abuse of power.
    - _coldfire 10y ago
      Exactly. Didn't make it far through that thread, but what is the proposed alternative? It's a bizarre, kneejerk reaction by a few people that ultimately may harm an entire language still in its formative years.
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        > may harm an entire language still in its formative years. Who cares? If people don't want to use the language they won't, and if people do, they will. I refuse to feel bad for the language.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      This is emblematic of what's wrong with so many subreddits and so much of the social web that comes in the form of "forums" -- it seems like we have entire generations of users who have associated the totalitarian nature of forums with things being "advanced" on the internet. Social media isn't mostly about free thought, free speech, and free inquiry anymore. Nowadays, it's mostly about the rapid dissemination of conformity. Woe betide you if you actually have a nuanced opinion that doesn't fit neatly with either side of an issue. Your fellow posters/commenters will reject their pattern-match and call you a liar and 5th columnist for the other side. Technology came and killed the impulse towards freedom. It taught people through repeated iteration that conformity to the mob was the highest good. It taught smart people that wrangling their way into positions of centralized power to exercise authoritarian rule was the insider move. It taught everyone that suppression of anything that you didn't like was the winning move. It was called the internet.
      - threeseed 10y ago
        This is self righteous, moralising nonsense. You are free to say whatever you want on the internet. Set up a blog or website and go nuts. You aren't free to dictate the behaviour of companies who don't want content on their site that is objectionable or factually baseless. Likewise it is just hypocritical and hilarious to complain about conformity just because your opinions don't correspond with theirs. Those people have the right to say and think what they want just like you do.
  - threeseed 10y ago
    The reason he removed the post was because he was being called a paedophile for killing off the pizzagate subreddit. There is a ton of drama and conspiracy nonsense tied up in this. Frankly /r/the_donald should have been removed as well for the libelous and disgraceful comments.
    - ticviking 10y ago
      I largely agree with you, but wanted to add some more context. The issue is, and has always been, caused by a serious problem in the reddit's admins have in being perceived as being unable to enforce the rules fairly. From time to time communities that are overall "okay" get deeply invested in an issue and "drama" is spawned. Sometimes rules are broken. When particular subs visibly break rules and the rules are not enforced their opponents feel license to also break rules. Both sides of these disputes could name a dozen or times that the other side broke the rules. They have mountains of evidence of this, and don't trust the admins as a result. Because of that, and the explicitly political nature of r/the_donald, none of the admins have felt they could enforce those rules. Into that toxic hellbroth of a situation /r/pizzagate repeatedly had dox-drops containing actual child pornography. Visibly breaking like the only true real rules reddit has, the admins took the only option they had, and ware demonized for it. Largely because all moderator actions had become so politicized, and after reviewing reported content that I suspect may have been genuinely traumatizing to review he made a mistake.
TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
It shouldn't be possible. There is certainly a reason for the ability to edit user posts to exist, but in an age where governments can and do demand details of a users activity, such a permission needs to be tightly controlled and properly audited. He's the CEO. He has absolutely no need for that level of access to end user accounts, any more than the CEO of a bank needs permission to silently skim money out of customers accounts.

nurettin 10y ago

It may not be smart, but it definitely is not stupid as you might have insinuated. Individuals deciding to exit because they disagree with company policy (editing content and apologizing) is one thing, forcing others, who don't care about stupid internet drama and conspiracy theories, to do the same is entirely something else. (that something else is borderline despotic)

problems 10y ago
Again "stupid internet drama and conspiracy theories" this is not. An admin abused their power. It's ripe for abuse and they've proven they're willing to abuse it and not mature enough to treat that power respectfully. I have a hard time respecting a company with someone like that as CEO. No conspiracy, no politics, just what happened.
- nurettin 10y ago
  Willing to abuse it - that is conspiracy -. How do you know that something done once will repeat? Will google restart google buzz because they did it once? Will everyone jump ship to RoR because they did it before? I am doing everything I can not to create strawmen believe me, but your explanation simply does not cut it.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Because the power is there and it's tempting to use. Restarting Buzz may not have economic sense for Google, but abusing admin-edit powers has obvious value for the abusers and may be hard to catch if the abuser is not an idiot. "Opportunity makes a thief", and all.
    - oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
      But, realistically, the power is there on any site featuring user contributions - Hacker News, Twitter, Slashdot, etc. etc. Humans are fallible; given infinite time, the same thing will happen on those sites too, and probably worse. If you push someone hard enough (I don't know the full story, but I believe the CEO was provoked) they will lash out and do something stupid unless they are incredibly serene or lack any emotion. If that possibility is too much of a concern, maybe we need to come up with an alternative - like some kind of decentralised, mass-distributed reddit-like. Actually, wasn't that usenet? Is it too late to get that back?
      - Buge 10y ago
        When people get "pushed hard enough" the usual thing is deleting comments and banning users. That's a known and accepted moderation power. Sure it's abused sometimes, but at least it's not lying and wrongly attributing negative comments to people. Invisibly editing comments is a very unexpected route to take. I doubt you could push most CEOs to that. They would just delete the comment.
        stcredzero 10y ago
        That's a known and accepted moderation power. Sure it's abused sometimes... That you'd say this is an indication of how far the culture online has fallen. What's now taken as an accepted use of moderation power was once considered abusive.
      - sqeaky 10y ago
        These other sites have demonstrated trustworthiness, as has Reddit up until this. We all know that site operators can change things, but some of them have enough integrity to be trusted not to.
    - eridius 10y ago
      The power has always been there. The fact that it's taken until now for the CEO to use it suggests that it's not actually ripe for abuse. And the fact that the CEO immediately reverted it, apologized, and is watching the community blow up, serves as even further motivation for not abusing this power again.
- shadowmint 10y ago
  Then leave. Don't use the site. How is this a big deal? If you're not comfortable with a platform then by every means, don't use it. ...but why does what you think mean that everyone should be affected?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Because then people don't get to be righteous.
    - threeseed 10y ago
      That's the best thing about righteous people. The ease with which they want to control and dictate the opinions and behaviours of other people.
  - xg15 10y ago
    Network effect. If only few people leave, each of them has to face a penalty for leaving (in this case not being able to participate in one of Go's main discussion hubs). If the whole community decides to leave (or rather move), there is no such penalty.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      This would be selfish, coercive and has 0 chance of working in the real world: I guarantee you there will be /r/golang2 or /r/gogophers within minutes of the the original subreddit being closed. As mentioned by someone else in the thread: the subreddit was in existence before being taken over by the golang team, it was fine before them, it will be fine after them if they choose to leave.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    Because the long term damage could be larger than the short term costs. I do not know if that is the case, that is up to the mods of /r/golang.
- blitzd 10y ago
  I would argue that a moderator shutting down a community of 25,000 individuals because of their own personal opinions is just as much if not the greater abuse of power.
  - _coldfire 10y ago
    Exactly. Didn't make it far through that thread, but what is the proposed alternative? It's a bizarre, kneejerk reaction by a few people that ultimately may harm an entire language still in its formative years.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      > may harm an entire language still in its formative years. Who cares? If people don't want to use the language they won't, and if people do, they will. I refuse to feel bad for the language.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    This is emblematic of what's wrong with so many subreddits and so much of the social web that comes in the form of "forums" -- it seems like we have entire generations of users who have associated the totalitarian nature of forums with things being "advanced" on the internet. Social media isn't mostly about free thought, free speech, and free inquiry anymore. Nowadays, it's mostly about the rapid dissemination of conformity. Woe betide you if you actually have a nuanced opinion that doesn't fit neatly with either side of an issue. Your fellow posters/commenters will reject their pattern-match and call you a liar and 5th columnist for the other side. Technology came and killed the impulse towards freedom. It taught people through repeated iteration that conformity to the mob was the highest good. It taught smart people that wrangling their way into positions of centralized power to exercise authoritarian rule was the insider move. It taught everyone that suppression of anything that you didn't like was the winning move. It was called the internet.
    - threeseed 10y ago
      This is self righteous, moralising nonsense. You are free to say whatever you want on the internet. Set up a blog or website and go nuts. You aren't free to dictate the behaviour of companies who don't want content on their site that is objectionable or factually baseless. Likewise it is just hypocritical and hilarious to complain about conformity just because your opinions don't correspond with theirs. Those people have the right to say and think what they want just like you do.
- threeseed 10y ago
  The reason he removed the post was because he was being called a paedophile for killing off the pizzagate subreddit. There is a ton of drama and conspiracy nonsense tied up in this. Frankly /r/the_donald should have been removed as well for the libelous and disgraceful comments.
  - ticviking 10y ago
    I largely agree with you, but wanted to add some more context. The issue is, and has always been, caused by a serious problem in the reddit's admins have in being perceived as being unable to enforce the rules fairly. From time to time communities that are overall "okay" get deeply invested in an issue and "drama" is spawned. Sometimes rules are broken. When particular subs visibly break rules and the rules are not enforced their opponents feel license to also break rules. Both sides of these disputes could name a dozen or times that the other side broke the rules. They have mountains of evidence of this, and don't trust the admins as a result. Because of that, and the explicitly political nature of r/the_donald, none of the admins have felt they could enforce those rules. Into that toxic hellbroth of a situation /r/pizzagate repeatedly had dox-drops containing actual child pornography. Visibly breaking like the only true real rules reddit has, the admins took the only option they had, and ware demonized for it. Largely because all moderator actions had become so politicized, and after reviewing reported content that I suspect may have been genuinely traumatizing to review he made a mistake.

TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago

It shouldn't be possible. There is certainly a reason for the ability to edit user posts to exist, but in an age where governments can and do demand details of a users activity, such a permission needs to be tightly controlled and properly audited. He's the CEO. He has absolutely no need for that level of access to end user accounts, any more than the CEO of a bank needs permission to silently skim money out of customers accounts.